Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr.Tapan Bhattacharya vs Union Of India on 15 February, 2018
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
----14---- W.P.No.19367/2017
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE
D.B.:HON'BLE SHRI P.K. JAISWAL
HON'BLE SHRI VIRENDER SINGH, JJ.
WRIT PETITION N0.19367/2017 (PIL)
Dr. TAPAN BHATTACHARYA
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS.
********
Shri A.M. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate with Shri A.
Dhanodkar, Advocate for the appellant.
********
ORDER
(Passed on this 15th day of February, 2018) PER P.K. JAISWAL, J:-
Petitioner, who is a lawyer by profession has filed the present Public Interest Litigation. He is also a social worker has sought for writ of mandamus directing the respondents for a judicial enquiry into the suspicious and mysterious death of Late Shri Anil Madhav, Union Minister for Environment and Forest.
2. Late Shri Anil Madhav was born in Badnagar, near Indore and was educated in Gujarati College and Government Arts College, Indore. He has residence in Shanti Nagar, Indore. He was a devoted RSS leader. He was unmarried and was staying in his parental house along with his cousin. After being elected to the Rajya
----14---- W.P.No.19367/2017 Sabha from Madhya Pradesh, he was made Minister of State (Independent Charge) in the Union Government holding the important portfolio of Environment and Forest.
3. According to the petitioner, the multinational companies, Monbsanto and Bayer pushing GM Crops in India as a "Cartel" and were bringing pressure on the Government of India, to approve the cultivation G-17 Hybrid Sarso. As a RSS man and committed to Swadeshi, he was declined to approve Hybrid G-17. On 17.5.2017, he was called by top Central Government dignitary to meet him. The representatives of farmers from various States and the environmental organizations and social activists met him requesting him not to sign in favour of G-17. As per averments made in the writ petition, he has no mind to give approval to G-17 cultivation. After meeting the top Government dignitaries, Shri Anil Madhav, having dinner, slept in his room alone. As per India Today news-paper, dated 18.5.2017, it was reported that when his staff went to wake him up at 7.30 A.M., he was found dead. As per Financial Express, reporting dated 19.5.2017, "the exact cause of his death was not immediately known". Earlier on Wednesday, he spent long time in his office and held a detailed discussion with group of activists who were protesting against the clearance granted to a genetically modified mustard variety. In the evening, he had a meeting with Hon'ble Prime Minister at about 7.30 P.M. At
----14---- W.P.No.19367/2017 about 7.30 A.M., Dave's staff tried to woke him up. The Minister was then taken to AIIMS where doctors declared him dead at 9.45 A.M. He was at AIIMS at 9.00 A.M. in the stage of cardiac arrest. All possible measures were taken immediately at AIIMS, but he could not survive and declared dead at 9.45 A.M. As per reporting in Hindustan Times dated 18.5.2017, Shri Dave, was taken straight to the cardio-thorasic tower two of the hospital and admitted in to the cardiac care unit, which is the Intensive Care Unit for cardiac emergencies. "Doctors tried hard to revive him, but his condition kept on deteriorating" and he was declared dead around 9.45 A.M.
4. Shri A.M. Mathur, learned Senior counsel has submitted that has a Environmental Minister, there was lot of pressure about the approval of G-17 Hybrid Sarso on behalf of the Government of India and there was great opposition from social and environment organizations and huge farmers who will be affected by the approval of proposal of Sarso G-17 Hybrid. Learned Senior counsel has drawn our attention to the various news-paper reportings and averments made in the writ petition and submitted that the death was caused under suspicious circumstances. Body had blue spots on it. There was a whisper of performing post-mortem of the dead body, but for the reasons best known to those who were present at that time and in-charge of arrangements post-death, this
----14---- W.P.No.19367/2017 demand was rejected. He submitted that as per Section 174 Cr.P.C., 1973, it is the duty of the police to call for a Magistrate and in accordance with the said provision to perform the postmortem, so as to know the cause of death whether it was homicidal or natural. He has also drawn our attention to his will (Annexure P/8) and submitted that the alleged will show that it was typed but number of blanks were shown and the blanks were filled in ink. It is suspicious will because a literary man like Shri Dave who wrote number of books, will get his will typed in this fashion and keep certain blanks to be filled on later. It needs explanation how the so called will reached the Chief Minister that evening, who gave him, what was the source, what was the place, what was the container. He also submitted that the cousins who were residing with Shri Dave at Indore were called Delhi by Special Plane and thereafter same accompanied the wooden coffin of Shri Dave to Bhopal. He further submitted that in the will there was mention of beneficiaries, his property and their value and why his cousins were excluded. These subsequent circumstances are also very suspicious. As per news-paper cutting, it was decided that his cremation will take place at Indore, but the later has been changed by the Chief Minister and he announced that his cremation will take place at 10.00 A.M. On 19.5.2017 at Bandara Band, Hoshangabad. The place of cremation was also changed
----14---- W.P.No.19367/2017 from Bandara Bandh to other side of the river, where people could go only by the boat, otherwise by road the cremation place is 15 K.M. The top Government Dignitaries have to explain about change of place and time of cremation on 18.5.2017. All this throws suspicion on the post-death ceremonies and it is the top Government dignitaries and the Government who must explain all this. He submitted that the nation wants to know the mysterious circumstances about the health and the illness and cause of death, the actual time of death, the actual disease and the various details which are required to know whether the death was natural or homicidal.
5. He has drawn our attention to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Vineet Narain & Ors. V/s. Union of India and Anr. reported as AIR 1998 SC 889, R.P. Ltd. V/s. India Express reported as AIR 1989 SC 190, Dinesh Trivedi V/s. Union of India reported as 1997 (4) SCC 306, Namita Sharma V/s. Union of India reported as 2013 (1) SCC 745, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India V/s. Cricket Association of Begnal reported as AIR 1995 SC 1236 and Jagat Singh V/s. Delhi Administration & Ors. reported as 1989 Supp (2) SCC 100 and submitted that as very powerful people involved, therefore, necessary orders be passed directing the respondents for judicial enquiry in the matter to know the true facts about the death of Shri
----14---- W.P.No.19367/2017 Anil Madhav Dave on 18.5.2017.
6. The jurisdiction of public interest litigation should be invoked very sparingly and in favour of vigilant litigant and not for the persons who invoke this jurisdiction for the sake of publicity.
7. A person acting bonafide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of public interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique considerations.
8. Normally, public interest litigation cannot be entertained solely on the basis of information published in the news-paper. However, if a person is unable to have assess in the court for any reason and the right of the life and liberty is involved, public interest litigation can be entertained. As per averments made in the writ petition, there is no material that the death of late Shri Anil Madhav Dave, is suspicious. As per para 4 of the writ petition the information of the facts pleaded in public interest litigation has been on the basis of various news-paper and information received from various sources. None of the family members or relative of the Late Shri Dave are having any doubt of the aforesaid will. If petitioner is having any doubt about the non-executing or authenticity
----14---- W.P.No.19367/2017 of Will, he can take appropriate steps, in accordance with law. Neither, we can examine all these questions here in this public interest litigation, nor on the basis of the same, we can draw our opinion that death of Late Shri Anil Dave is suspicious and mysterious.
9. On the perusal of the pleadings in the writ petition and the documents annexed therewith, the first thing which strikes us that the writ petition contains sweeping allegations. The only material which has been annexed along with the writ petition is the newspaper report published on 19.5.2017 in daily newspaper the Indian Express, news report dated 24.10.2017, published in the Economics Times, news report dated 19.5.2017, published in Financial Express, news report dated 18.5.2017, published in India Today.in, news report dated 18.5.2017, published in Hindustan Times. Apart from the aforesaid, no other material has been brought on record. The writ petition itself has been filed on 13.11.2017, thus, it is apparent that immediately after reading the news report dated 24.10.2017, the petitioner, who is a social activist and lawyer has rushed to the Court by means of the present writ petition. There is nothing in the pleading to indicate that any effort was made by them to verify the veracity of the newspaper reports being relied upon by them. There is also no pleading nor any material to show that any research whatsoever was done by him to ascertain the veracity of the allegations made by him in his
----14---- W.P.No.19367/2017 writ petition with regard to the suspicious death of late Shri Anil Madhav Dave. The pleadings in the writ petition are lacking in requisite details. The pleadings contained in the writ petition are of a very general and sweeping nature, unsupported by any specific incident or proof. No data has been furnished in support of their averments which could compel us to interfere in the matter. We are unable to accept the arguments of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner. We have to be persuaded by the pleadings in the writ petition before us and the material which has been brought on record by the petitioner so as to enable us to form at least a prima-facie objective view of the matter for our interference in exercise of our extra- ordinary/discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We cannot be persuaded merely by media reports or what has been referred by the learned Advocate as "Common Knowledge". We cannot allow our subjective opinion based on media reports to creep in. Only after prima-facie case is made out by the petitioner, we may proceed with the matter. Newspaper reports can be additional information, which may be taken into consideration coupled with other proof and admissible material, but they on their own cannot form the basis for forming any opinion in the matter. In this regard, there are repeated pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that newspaper reports cannot be made the basis for entertaining such PIL but it appears that these
----14---- W.P.No.19367/2017 pronouncements have either not been noticed by the petitioner who has filed this writ petition or if noticed, have been ignored in his zeal to rush to the Court believing that whatever has been stated in the newspaper reports is the gospel's truth, which does not require any further verification and the Courts will also pounce upon the same and grant relief.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others reported as 2010(3) SCC 402, it was held therein that before entertaining a PIL, the court should prima facie satisfy itself of the credentials of the petitioner, the correctness of the contents thereof and that special public interest is involved therein. The present writ petition is motivated and only intended to sensitilise the death of Anil Madhav Dave death. The demise happened in the morning on 18.5.2017. He was cremated at the bank of Narmada river as per his wish in the presence of his family members. Neither aggrieved persons nor the so called PIL petitioner did anything for one year. Thereafter, the petitioner on the basis of some news-paper report has filed the present public interest litigation. A PIL ordinarily may not be entertained based upon the news-paper article. Hearsay is no place in a criminal tire.
11. Who is the petitioner ? What does he do ? How is the benefit of the society related to the death of Lt. Shri Anil Madhav Dave ?. The source of so called about the death
----14---- W.P.No.19367/2017 of Shri Anil Madhav Dave is news-paper reports. There has been no verification of the facts before moving the High Court. The nature of allegations is also completely reckless. How could it have been stated that the averments are true and correct to my knowledge.
12. In Kusum Lata V/s. Union of India & Others, reported as 2006 (6) SCC 180, it has been observed by the Apex Court that the court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with the imposters and busybodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of Pro-Bono-Publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect.
13. In the case of Rohit Pandey V/s. Union of India and others reported as 2005(13) SCC 702, wherein it was held that when a member of legal profession files PIL, it is expected that it would be filed with all seriousness and after doing necessary homework and enquiry. If such a petition is filed to be misconceived, it should be dismissed with exemplary costs.
14. In the case of B.P. Singhal V/s. State of T.N. & Others reported as 2004 (13) SCC 673, it is held that "All the averments made in the petition are based, by and large, on news reports and not on personal knowledge. The petition does not state that the petitioner has taken any care to verify himself the correctness of the
----14---- W.P.No.19367/2017 averments made."
15. In the case of Laxmi Raj Shetty & Another V/s. State of Tamil Nadu reported as 1998 (3) SCC 319 has held that the Court cannot take judicial notice of the facts stated in a news item published in a news-paper. A newspaper is not one of the documents referred to in Section 78(2) of the Evidence Act and thus by a news item an allegation of fact cannot be proved. The presumption of genuineness attached under Section 81 of the Act to a newspaper report cannot be treated as proved of the facts reported therein. A statement of fact contained in a newspaper is merely hearsay and therefore inadmissible in evidence unless proved by evidence aliunde by the maker of the statement appearing in court and deposing to have perceived the fact reported. It is well known that reporters collect information and pass it on to the editor who edits the news item and then publishes it. In this process the truth might get perverted or garbled. Such news items cannot be said to prove themselves although they may be taken into account with other evidence if the other evidence is forcible."
16. For the above mentioned reasons, we are of the view that the present writ petition, which is only based on the news-paper report is not maintainable. As already stated, no effort has been made by the petitioner before us to enquire and collect necessary data and material in respect
----14---- W.P.No.19367/2017 of the events and no attempt has been made by him to verify the factual position. The legal position as referred above has been totally ignored. We are constrained to observe that such a casual approach in the matter of public interest does more harm than good. The fact that petitioner is Advocate makes it all the more painful. Public Interest Litigation cannot be entertained on the basis of speculative foundation and premises so as to make a roving inquiry. The writ petition does not contain the factual pre-requesites nor any reasoning in support of the bald assertion that the provisions of Cr.P.C. are not met out. Bald and general allegations as contained in the writ petition are of no help. In the absence of requisite material, it is not possible to entertain this writ petition.
17. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the writ petition does not pass the test when tested on the anvil of the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court as referred to above, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. No relief as claimed in the relief clause therein can be considered or granted. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(P.K. JAISWAL) (VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
SS/-
Digitally signed by
Shailesh Sukhdev
Date: 2018.02.22
11:32:30 +05'30'
----14---- W.P.No.19367/2017
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE D.B.:HON'BLE SHRI P.K. JAISWAL HON'BLE SHRI VIRENDER SINGH, JJ.
WRIT PETITION N0.19367/2017 (PIL) Dr. TAPAN BHATTACHARYA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS.
***** ORDER FOR CONSIDERATION (P.K. JAISWAL) JUDGE /2/2018 HON'BLE SHRI VIRENDER SINGH, J.
(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE /2/2018 Post for _ /2/2018 (P.K. JAISWAL) JUDGE
----14---- W.P.No.19367/2017 / 2/2018
----14---- W.P.No.19367/2017 WRIT PETITION N0.19367/2017 (PIL) Indore dated 29.1.2018 Shri A.M. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate with Shri A. Dhanodkar, Advocate for the appellant.
Heard.
Reserved for orders.
(P.K. JAISWAL) (VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
SS/-